2 Add reference to Scheldt campaign
source | link

Recent authors of books about WWII that cover mostly allied point of view, like Anthony Beevor or Rick Atkinson, are quite critic of Allied commanders (like Patton, Montgomery or Clark), specially because they were interested on looking good, get fame or solve personal issues. For example:

  1. Mark Clark forced his army to reach Rome before D-Day, because he knew that after D-Day he will lost all media attention.
  2. Patton sent a force far beyond his lines to reach a prisoner of war camp, where his son-in-law was kept. The operation was a failure.
  3. Montgomery several times disdained american generals and claimed for himself the command of all western Europe forces.

Also, these authors complain that allied generals were not that good as the media during the war said. For example, Montgomery was criticised for being slow or using a lot of resources in operations (Operation Plunder), he never took risks, and when he did, he failed (Marked-Garden). Patton took too many risks, sacrificing forces, like in Metz. Hodges had a strees crisis during the battle of bulge.

About your research, I'll give you a little bit more information.
The Falaise pocket wasn't a full encirclement, germans where able to leave the trap, and most german looses were due to air force attacks. Actually, allies were too slow to close the trap.
While the topic of logistics, that is something that a commander has to take in account, they are guilty for disdain that. Actually, the crisis that allied had with logistics after september 1944, was because Montgomery did not open the harbor of Antwerp and its access (I mean, western Scheldt, including the island, like Walcheren).

Now, in my opinion, these authors realized that these generals were quite normal people compared to other generals. But one has to remember that during the war, they were idols.

Their books are quite good, do not miss them.

Recent authors of books about WWII that cover mostly allied point of view, like Anthony Beevor or Rick Atkinson, are quite critic of Allied commanders (like Patton, Montgomery or Clark), specially because they were interested on looking good, get fame or solve personal issues. For example:

  1. Mark Clark forced his army to reach Rome before D-Day, because he knew that after D-Day he will lost all media attention.
  2. Patton sent a force far beyond his lines to reach a prisoner of war camp, where his son-in-law was kept. The operation was a failure.
  3. Montgomery several times disdained american generals and claimed for himself the command of all western Europe forces.

Also, these authors complain that allied generals were not that good as the media during the war said. For example, Montgomery was criticised for being slow or using a lot of resources in operations (Operation Plunder), he never took risks, and when he did, he failed (Marked-Garden). Patton took too many risks, sacrificing forces, like in Metz. Hodges had a strees crisis during the battle of bulge.

About your research, I'll give you a little bit more information.
The Falaise pocket wasn't a full encirclement, germans where able to leave the trap, and most german looses were due to air force attacks. Actually, allies were too slow to close the trap.
While the topic of logistics, that is something that a commander has to take in account, they are guilty for disdain that. Actually, the crisis that allied had with logistics after september 1944, was because Montgomery did not open the harbor of Antwerp and its access.

Now, in my opinion, these authors realized that these generals were quite normal people compared to other generals. But one has to remember that during the war, they were idols.

Their books are quite good, do not miss them.

Recent authors of books about WWII that cover mostly allied point of view, like Anthony Beevor or Rick Atkinson, are quite critic of Allied commanders (like Patton, Montgomery or Clark), specially because they were interested on looking good, get fame or solve personal issues. For example:

  1. Mark Clark forced his army to reach Rome before D-Day, because he knew that after D-Day he will lost all media attention.
  2. Patton sent a force far beyond his lines to reach a prisoner of war camp, where his son-in-law was kept. The operation was a failure.
  3. Montgomery several times disdained american generals and claimed for himself the command of all western Europe forces.

Also, these authors complain that allied generals were not that good as the media during the war said. For example, Montgomery was criticised for being slow or using a lot of resources in operations (Operation Plunder), he never took risks, and when he did, he failed (Marked-Garden). Patton took too many risks, sacrificing forces, like in Metz. Hodges had a strees crisis during the battle of bulge.

About your research, I'll give you a little bit more information.
The Falaise pocket wasn't a full encirclement, germans where able to leave the trap, and most german looses were due to air force attacks. Actually, allies were too slow to close the trap.
While the topic of logistics, that is something that a commander has to take in account, they are guilty for disdain that. Actually, the crisis that allied had with logistics after september 1944, was because Montgomery did not open the harbor of Antwerp and its access (I mean, western Scheldt, including the island, like Walcheren).

Now, in my opinion, these authors realized that these generals were quite normal people compared to other generals. But one has to remember that during the war, they were idols.

Their books are quite good, do not miss them.

1
source | link

Recent authors of books about WWII that cover mostly allied point of view, like Anthony Beevor or Rick Atkinson, are quite critic of Allied commanders (like Patton, Montgomery or Clark), specially because they were interested on looking good, get fame or solve personal issues. For example:

  1. Mark Clark forced his army to reach Rome before D-Day, because he knew that after D-Day he will lost all media attention.
  2. Patton sent a force far beyond his lines to reach a prisoner of war camp, where his son-in-law was kept. The operation was a failure.
  3. Montgomery several times disdained american generals and claimed for himself the command of all western Europe forces.

Also, these authors complain that allied generals were not that good as the media during the war said. For example, Montgomery was criticised for being slow or using a lot of resources in operations (Operation Plunder), he never took risks, and when he did, he failed (Marked-Garden). Patton took too many risks, sacrificing forces, like in Metz. Hodges had a strees crisis during the battle of bulge.

About your research, I'll give you a little bit more information.
The Falaise pocket wasn't a full encirclement, germans where able to leave the trap, and most german looses were due to air force attacks. Actually, allies were too slow to close the trap.
While the topic of logistics, that is something that a commander has to take in account, they are guilty for disdain that. Actually, the crisis that allied had with logistics after september 1944, was because Montgomery did not open the harbor of Antwerp and its access.

Now, in my opinion, these authors realized that these generals were quite normal people compared to other generals. But one has to remember that during the war, they were idols.

Their books are quite good, do not miss them.